Every type of web server I have ever seen logs the IP address and URL of every request. Most of them even log the referrer address, browser version, and operating system. If you have cookies enabled, chances are 90% of websites you visit track you through those. In particular,/. tracks the hell out of you if you're logged in.
Many of them log javascript, java, flash, PDF and other plugins. They also track how you got there, referral, bookmark or search engine, and what search terms you used that led you there.
Google has actually managed to turn ads into something desirable.
You are the one person I finally agree with. I see Google's ads every time I search, but they're easy to ignore. Whenever I'm searching for something I want to buy, instead of a review of what I want to buy, the ads are just what the doctor ordered.
However, I wouldn't pay for the privlege of searching Google. Any big name search engine that starts charging for usage would imediately have it's crawler bot's IPs banned from every web server I have control of, and I would encourage others to do the same.
If I can't search you, you can't search me.
I also think micropayments would be a disaster. I would be like Elaine wondering if my search was sponge-worthy, and I'd feel cheated if the results turned up nothing useful.
The thing that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside is the fact that Dave Barry can handle a slashdotting no problem, but the ATAcrumbled under the power of a double force tag team slashdotting and barry-bashing.
Most universities require freshmen and even sophomores to live in the dorms citing various "campus involvement"
Most require? I haven't been to college in a good number of years, but that seems like a big load of crap to me.
What if I can live with my parents and not pay rent? The school can't compel me to live in their facilities (afterall, this is not a day care, or even a night care). And what's it to them if I want to be anti-social? Collge is about buying an education, not social acceptance.
I assume that this is suposed to be Roman numerals, but it's not a valid numeric value. I suppose most closely translated it would be "8 8 5" or "8 and 8 and 5". But that doesn't make very much sense.
If we're suposed to add these values together that would make arabic numerals 29, or XXIX in roman. Maybe he means "eight hundred and eighty-five" bot correctly rendered in Roman is DCCCLXXXV.
Maybe I should just pronounce it as is...eekseeksev, but that sound doesn't homonymistic to any other numeric words that I know.
Is this an inside joke that I missed? Or does somebody need a refresher course on Roman numerals?
Too bad the Registry is a securable object, otherwise you might have a point.
You procede from a false assumption. I work in a major American corp. I'm not saying who, but you've not only heard of them, but more likely than not are a direct customer (not MS).
I can log into any computer on the network, and have administrator access on the local system. Securable? Maybe. Secured? Not likely.
And the reason MS used it for login in NT 3.1 was for security.
This is completely wrong. There is nothing inherently more secure about those keys than any other keys on the board. To quote you, "it could have been shift-esc-break". There's nothing special about it. They chose that key combo because everybody and their mother knows about it and they had too hook the BIOS so that people wouldn't blast their system every time it crashed. And contrary to popular believe it can be hooked in windows just like every key sequence. The next time you're at Barnes & Noble press ctrl+alt+del and see what happens.
Actually there are several sysadmins that pre-date Ashpenaz. When Jehu engineers a hostile takeover he is assisted by two or three of them and it seems that they may have been using a GUI interface:
2 Kings 9:32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who [is] on my side? who? And there looked out to him two [or] three eunuchs.
That's just a few boxen, no system admins listed. If you want to be a real stickler, Moses forbade eunuchs from entering the temple (I guess Israel runs on Windows) in Leviticus 21.
The actual version being run on a Debian stable system is 3.4p1-1.1.
It's version 3.4 exactly as it was origonally released. Debian stable does not upgrade packages, that's why it's stable. Instead, the fix is backported to the older version so that it is not only stable but secure as well.
The systems in question are FreeBSD, RedHat, Gentoo, and Debian all running the latest versions of OpenSSH.
The attack makes an enormous amount of ssh connections and attempts various offsets until it finds one that works permitting root login.
Odd. I run Debian on all of my systems and PermitRootLogin is set to no on all of them. Sarge and Sid also have UsePrivilegeSeparation set to yes by default.
No. SCO must pass along most (I believe) of the money to Novell. They're like a debt-collecting agency, collecting for Novell.
Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell. Quoting an e-week article here:
Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.
Slashdot Mirror
You wrote "it's" where you should've written "its."
I used it in the sens of "something that is owned by it", which you may notice is called posessive.
Similarly, you might say:
John's dog is black. It's eyes are blue.
See how that works? "it's" is either posessive or "it is". "its" is plural (as in multiple "its").
Does it log me when I browse Usenet groups using my favorite newsreader?
Actually, if you ever post a message, yes.
Search for yourself and see what dumb stuff you said 5 years ago.
Aparently you've never run a web server.
/. tracks the hell out of you if you're logged in.
Every type of web server I have ever seen logs the IP address and URL of every request. Most of them even log the referrer address, browser version, and operating system. If you have cookies enabled, chances are 90% of websites you visit track you through those. In particular,
Many of them log javascript, java, flash, PDF and other plugins. They also track how you got there, referral, bookmark or search engine, and what search terms you used that led you there.
You should think about clicking that checkmark next to "Use my choice for all cookies from this site".
You used a noun without it's accompanying indefinite article.
Google has actually managed to turn ads into something desirable.
You are the one person I finally agree with. I see Google's ads every time I search, but they're easy to ignore. Whenever I'm searching for something I want to buy, instead of a review of what I want to buy, the ads are just what the doctor ordered.
However, I wouldn't pay for the privlege of searching Google. Any big name search engine that starts charging for usage would imediately have it's crawler bot's IPs banned from every web server I have control of, and I would encourage others to do the same.
If I can't search you, you can't search me.
I also think micropayments would be a disaster. I would be like Elaine wondering if my search was sponge-worthy, and I'd feel cheated if the results turned up nothing useful.
The thing that makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside is the fact that Dave Barry can handle a slashdotting no problem, but the ATAcrumbled under the power of a double force tag team slashdotting and barry-bashing.
What a great way to start the day!
Most universities require freshmen and even sophomores to live in the dorms citing various "campus involvement"
Most require? I haven't been to college in a good number of years, but that seems like a big load of crap to me.
What if I can live with my parents and not pay rent? The school can't compel me to live in their facilities (afterall, this is not a day care, or even a night care). And what's it to them if I want to be anti-social? Collge is about buying an education, not social acceptance.
Did I miss something?
I assume that this is suposed to be Roman numerals, but it's not a valid numeric value. I suppose most closely translated it would be "8 8 5" or "8 and 8 and 5". But that doesn't make very much sense.
If we're suposed to add these values together that would make arabic numerals 29, or XXIX in roman.
Maybe he means "eight hundred and eighty-five" bot correctly rendered in Roman is DCCCLXXXV.
Maybe I should just pronounce it as is...eekseeksev, but that sound doesn't homonymistic to any other numeric words that I know.
Is this an inside joke that I missed? Or does somebody need a refresher course on Roman numerals?
I've been used by one, does that count?
Wait, maybe that was abused...
Too bad the Registry is a securable object, otherwise you might have a point.
You procede from a false assumption. I work in a major American corp. I'm not saying who, but you've not only heard of them, but more likely than not are a direct customer (not MS).
I can log into any computer on the network, and have administrator access on the local system. Securable? Maybe. Secured? Not likely.
And the reason MS used it for login in NT 3.1 was for security.
This is completely wrong. There is nothing inherently more secure about those keys than any other keys on the board. To quote you, "it could have been shift-esc-break". There's nothing special about it. They chose that key combo because everybody and their mother knows about it and they had too hook the BIOS so that people wouldn't blast their system every time it crashed. And contrary to popular believe it can be hooked in windows just like every key sequence. The next time you're at Barnes & Noble press ctrl+alt+del and see what happens.
Wow, you actually asked for mod points and got them. I'm impressed.
I wonder if that will work for me too.
Hey! Moderators! Mod me up!
Please.
Actually there are several sysadmins that pre-date Ashpenaz. When Jehu engineers a hostile takeover he is assisted by two or three of them and it seems that they may have been using a GUI interface:
2 Kings 9:32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who [is] on my side? who? And there looked out to him two [or] three eunuchs.
That's just a few boxen, no system admins listed.
If you want to be a real stickler, Moses forbade eunuchs from entering the temple (I guess Israel runs on Windows) in Leviticus 21.
If you read the book of Acts chapter 8 verses 27 and following...
Aparently you don't know your Bible very well.
Daniel 1:3
"Then the king instructed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs..."
As you can see, Ashpenaz is the first SysAdmin listed in the Bible, somewhere between 600 BC and 580 BC.
I guess this could be considered "news for newbies" because this has been in the jargon file for quite some time.
That's ok, you go read it guys. I'll just sit back sipping my ISO standard cup of tea and enjoying some ANSI standard pizza.
Be sure to submit a story when you find out why it's called El Camino Bignum.
In soviet russia verisign sucks you.
ha ha, yada yada yada.
If you're going to quote pop culture, do it right.
Dr. Evil quite prominently pronounced his "R"s
They do carry it, but the shelves are empty and the computer controlled inventory says the stock is full.
ask apt about lol
They're not making up their own version numbers.
The actual version being run on a Debian stable system is 3.4p1-1.1.
It's version 3.4 exactly as it was origonally released. Debian stable does not upgrade packages, that's why it's stable. Instead, the fix is backported to the older version so that it is not only stable but secure as well.
The systems in question are FreeBSD, RedHat, Gentoo, and Debian all
running the latest versions of OpenSSH.
The attack makes an enormous amount of ssh connections and attempts
various offsets until it finds one that works permitting root login.
Odd. I run Debian on all of my systems and PermitRootLogin is set to no on all of them. Sarge and Sid also have UsePrivilegeSeparation set to yes by default.
No. SCO must pass along most (I believe) of the money to Novell. They're like a debt-collecting agency, collecting for Novell.
Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell.
Quoting an e-week article here:
Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.
SCO's well thought out legal reply is "liar liar pants on fire".
One way is by posting a link on here and wait for it to get slashdotted.